On August 16, 2008, in a CBN News interview with David Brody, Senator Barack Obama said:
They’re engaging in the kind of politics that I think we’ve become accustomed to which is you try to tear your opponents down and you engage in sort of slash and burn tactics. And very personal sort of personal character attacks. And one of the challenges for us in this campaign is how do you make sure those attacks are answered quickly and forcefully, but also truthfully and that we don’t fall into that same kind of tactic. …
As promised, Mark Levin again interviewed Jerome Corsi, the author of ‘The Obama Nation‘, last night:
I opened Corsi’s book over the weekend, first read pages 236 through 240, and then followed the notes. Nothing in Barack Obama’s rebuttal refutes footnote # 5 [pdf: see pages 84-88, Senate Bill 1093 (use '1093' in the 'find' search box as a shortcut)] or the document below (click on the image to enlarge it):
On its web site, the National Right to Life Committee explains that image and the areas I highlighted:
The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.
The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style….
To see the official “Senate Committee Action Report” on this meeting … (The document is dated March 12, 2003, which is the day that the committee convened, but Chairman Obama recessed the meeting until March 13, which is the day that these votes actually occurred.)
View in web browser format
View in JPG photo format
View in PDF format[See full National Right to Life report, with additional supporting links.]
Yesterday, the New York Sun reported:
“His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate…”
Now read (or listen to) the rest of what Barack Obama told CBN News’ David Brody:
Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act… they’re basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.
…
Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say –that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong. And that’s what’s been happening.
No baby born alive should be allowed to die.
Barack Obama is running for President and for four years repeatedly lied about his vote that blocked legislation that would have required babies born alive be treated as human beings.
Jerome Corsi and David Freddoso have written books.
In ‘The Obama Nation‘ and ‘The Case Against Barack Obama‘ you will find fact after fact about Barack Obama, as well as the sources of their information.
.jpg)
This voting incident once again brings into mind why I feel the way I do about life and its’ preservation and protection. Let me first say that this issue comes up again and again and in many cases it is becoming apparent that this is not really about choice but about something else. Liberals are always about something else and their real agendas are generally camouflaged. You either truly care for life or you care not a bit about its’ preservation and/or have a different agenda in mind. You either care for the environment or care not a bit about its’ preservation and/or have a different agenda in mind. You are either for the military and their missions or care not a bit about them and/or have a different agenda in mind. You are either for freedom of speech, press, radio and religion, the right to bear arms and States’ rights and the many other individual rights that liberty and freedom afford you or care not a bit about them and/or have a different agenda in mind. Liberals, under the guise of compassion and a supposed sincere concern for liberty and freedom have managed to malign, misrepresent, mischaracterize and distort disingenuously just about every Constitutional safeguard that we have in order to undermine their very intended purpose. Here we have a right derived from an expanded and inferred right of privacy that supposedly was something the framers accidentally left out, but really meant to put into the Constitution, so the Court did it for us. It never ceases to amaze me how this Court created right is looked upon as the mother of all rights, that cannot be modified, restricted, or abrogated in any fashion, or in any way, by the same people who have no difficulty in demanding that exceptions be made to the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments along with Executive powers and the scope of habeas corpus during wartime. From Barack Obama’s viewpoint we have a flexible living and breathing Constitution but a guaranteed inflexible Court conferred individual right to determine whether your unborn baby lives or dies.
While recently performing an ovariohysterectomy on a feral and very wild 10-month-old cat that already had two stillborn kittens, the 3rd and final kitten was removed, fully mature and capable of living. We knew that only this final kitten remained and that he was quite viable because his heart was readily seen beating on an ultrasound just before the decision was made for surgical intervention. In this case the purpose of the surgery was to save the mother who was suffering from uterine inertia and the life of the kitten was not foremost. After removal he could have been left, gasping for air, to die of suffocation, unattended and covered within the membranes of his yet unbroken amniotic sac. Today that little guy is alive, with his eyes wide open, because we elected to dedicate three technicians to ensure that he survive and be given every chance to reach the age where he can be safely adopted out. Now, if that is the way I feel about a homeless kitten, taken from a homeless mother, rest assured my emotions regarding a human life discarded, and left to die, alone in a waste cart, without any human intervention, is beyond anything I even wish to describe while simultaneously contemplating the event.
Here we have an attorney who has not yet practiced law attempting to nullify the definition of a human life via a statute or law so as to undermine the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby avoid equal protection. How do you even make any law, which trumps the Constitution? By changing the definition of life? Now I have my problems with the Fourteenth Amendment, since its’ purpose was for the benefit of recently freed slaves, but it is part of the Constitution and Obama knows how it is currently applied because he and his ilk always use it in the broadest sense. What degrees in biology or medicine does he hold that authorizes him to change the definition of what a human life is? When has Down’s syndrome children ever not had a right to live after birth? Does he expect to have the same success as the Supreme Court that changed the definition of CO2 so this very natural substance is seen as a pollutant to be regulated by the EPA? Furthermore, I thought that Roe vs. Wade was about a woman’s right to do what she wanted to do with her own body. This woman did do what she wanted to do. She had the abortion. The right was then over. Is Obama now saying the right to have an abortion is not the only right granted, or that should have been granted, or meant to be granted, by Roe vs. Wade and that an additional right to destroy the life within you exists, as well, and if the abortion fails to accomplish that then you need be allowed another shot to achieve this alternative, and just as substantial, implied right? Or else, is he, just advancing along an agenda, further to the left, in the incremental fashion that we can count upon all liberals doing? These are the same people who give citizenship and Constitutional protection to the newborn babies of illegal aliens. These are the same people, who in the State of Florida cite a drunken driver with a double homicide if he kills a pregnant mother. I know because I live in the house whose former occupant was responsible for the creation of that law.
If you give liberals enough rope their true intentions always become apparent. Nothing on the liberal agenda is about rights and freedoms; on the contrary the agenda is about power and control by the elites over the rest of us and the way they achieve that end is to disguise their real intentions and purposes so as to have you believe that they are offering you something that you already have when in fact they are looking to take those guaranteed freedoms and liberties away because they are smack in the path of their true goals and objectives. They are Stalinists first, Marxists second and socialists third. And within Barack Obama lie all the aforementioned political philosophies and objectives.